« first day (1507 days earlier)      last day (3516 days later) » 

12:06 AM
@TedShifrin spheres?
 
fraid not ... Now since I'm planning to take only carry-on luggage (2 day trip), I'm looking at the list of what I can't take on the airplane. ule pills
 
@TedShifrin frayed knot?
@TedShifrin I don't think I've seen spheres on the TSA watch list
 
:17749366
I can summon uniform convergence and be done, yes?
 
You're being particularly unhelpful, @robjohn :P
Wrong noun, but right idea, @Pedro.
 
12:13 AM
@TedShifrin Sorry... I can't help with your packing, so all I can do is try to lighten the mood. I guess I've failed.
 
LOL
you could tell me you take all sorts of stuff in your carry-on, including gel-cap pills :P
 
@TedShifrin Only when I want a cavity search.
 
ugh ... well, other than spending $50 to stow the luggage underneath, any suggestions?
 
@TedShifrin how long a trip are you taking?
 
ATL -> DCA
 
12:17 AM
@TedShifrin Cannot I just take $\varepsilon_n=1/n$, let $n\to\infty$ and invoke uniform convergence of the sequence of functions?
 
@PedroTamaroff Quoi?
 
Of course, this is because the function is uniformly continuous over compact sets.
 
@TedShifrin for how long?
 
Hm hm looks like I missed a fun discussion.
 
2 days, @robjohn ... but I still need pills and to shave :P
 
12:18 AM
41 mins ago, by Pedro Tamaroff
Suppose $f: \overline{B(0,r) }\to\Bbb C$ is continuous, and holomorphic in the interior.
40 mins ago, by Pedro Tamaroff
I want to show that Cauchy's integral formula still holds for $f$ in $B(0,r)$, @TedShifrin.
 
Are you thinking of explicitly parametrizing by a fixed interval or something, @Pedro?
 
@DanielFischer $\uparrow$
@TedShifrin, yes. That was my idea.
 
Hush @DanielF ... don't do it for him.
 
@TedShifrin Okay, my mouth is sealed.
 
So $t\mapsto (r-n^{-1})e^{it}$ over $[0,2\pi]$.
 
12:19 AM
@TedShifrin Other than shipping stuff or checking a bag to hold the pills and stuff, I don't know.
 
That's just nuts, @robjohn. Usually I take long trips, so I check a bag, but for 2 days and a tiny bag it seem a waste of money and of time (which I won't have tomorrow night).
I need to do more web search.
 
@DanielFischer Seems Ted is too busy with his airplane flight.
Hehehe.
 
OK, @Pedro, you can do it that way.
@Pedro ... I guess you brought nothing of alarm in your carry-on in your US travels ...
I was thinking uniform continuity, rather than uniform convergence, @Pedro.
 
@TedShifrin Not really, no.
 
@PedroTamaroff Now you only need to explain why you can take the limit.
 
12:21 AM
@TedShifrin yeah, two days is too short a trip, which is why I wasn't really suggesting them, just saying that I didn't have any other suggestions.
 
@DanielFischer Because of uniform convergence, yes?
Is there a better way to do it?
 
Surely people do this all the time, @robjohn. I guess I can shave without shaving cream :P
 
@PedroTamaroff Yes. And not as far as I know to the better way.
 
@TedShifrin isn't it called equicontinuity for sequences of functions?
 
I'm trying to figure out the definition of a physics thing, but the damn physicists never define anything
 
12:23 AM
I didn't have a sequence of functions, @robjohn: @Pedro created one.
 
Wait, I don't even know what is going on here.
 
@TedShifrin are pills a problem? I thought it was just liquids that were the problem. You can buy small things of shaving gel, can't you?
 
What's new, @BalarkaSen?
 
@MikeMiller Defining things would allow to be rigorous. You see, the physicists have a good reason not to define anything.
 
Apparently gel-cap pills are a problem ...
I guess I'll keep them separate and be prepared to have them confiscated, and try to buy some in DC and then throw out what I don't use. Sigh.
 
12:25 AM
@MikeMiller I am trying to figure out the number of perfect powers in $[n^k, (n+1)^k]$ for a given $k$.
 
Idiotic that GA allows guns in churches, schools, restaurants, and stores, but I can't take a pill on board.
 
@BalarkaSen Seventeen
Precisely seventeen
 
C'mon, it's a serious problem.
 
And that's a serious answer. It differs from reality for small $(n,k)$, but for large enough such pairs it's seventeen.
 
abc-conjecture only gives me partial results. For $k = 2$ it seems there are no more than $2$, for $k = 3$, looks like $3/2 \cdot n^{1/2} + O(1)$. I haven't generalized.
throws a table at @Mike
 
12:29 AM
I don't know why @Balarka gives me hell for smacking people, when he's constantly throwing tables at them.
 
Moi? Hell?
 
Balarka means silly tables of number theoretic results.
 
I appreciate smacking.
 
Like the number of quasi-lovable-friendly numbers in an interval.
 
Analysts.
@Karl!
 
12:30 AM
lol
You know I am just here to troll.
 
Better that than trawl.
 
Better than writing a paper amirite
 
When you trawl all you pick up are old questions that no one want. Sort of like that weird 3 -eyed bottom feeder fish I caught the other day
 
@Vladhagen 3-eyed bottom feeder fish?
Seriously?
 
@KarlKronenfeld How are you doing on twin primes?
 
12:34 AM
No. All I do these days is write papers math papers and try not to run out of funding.
 
Ah @robjohn: To make matters worse, it seems they've shrunk the sizes for allowable carry-ons.
 
@PedroTamaroff Yeah, I forgot about that.
 
Heya @Karl.
 
@Vladhagen Was it covered in scum?
@PedroTamaroff prime twins you mean
@TedShifrin How goes it?
 
All my papers are scum.
 
12:35 AM
Aw
 
@Vladhagen Better than scam.
 
Oh, you mean the fish? No...it just had a large bottle in its stomach!
 
did the bottle have a boat in it?
 
@Karl Is that yours?
That bottle with a boat?
 
Yes, clever aren't I.
 
12:36 AM
A Klein bottle with a boat. Now there's a novel concept.
 
holy shit
 
We are speaking nonsense, you know.
Raving nonsense.
 
Combines the best of 2 worlds.
 
I think I'll go back to my packing ... in a different suitcase. Sigh.
 
Where are you headed?
 
12:37 AM
@TedShifrin where're you going?
 
@Pedro: I think it's easy enough to make the argument by uniform continuity, without explicit parametrization.
 
jinx, and @karl beat me to it
 
To DC for the weekend ...
 
Fun, I guess...
 
@TedShifrin Directed Continuum?
I am bad at contractions.
 
12:38 AM
@Balarka: You trying to end up on ignore again?
 
No, seriously, I don't even know what DC means.
 
Washington, DC ... the capital of the US
 
OK... what does US suppose to mean?
 
rolls eyes
 
Ugh. How can I prove that sin*cos is one to one?
 
12:39 AM
It's certainly not @Anthony.
 
@Anthony From where to where?
 
@Anthony You're a physics student, right?
 
It's certainly not from R \to R.
 
@MikeMiller well... I'm something.
Not R to R.
 
No, he's a math student, @Mike.
 
12:40 AM
I'm something.
 
LOL
 
[-1, 1] to [-1, 1], @Anthony?
 
He's something, @TedShifrin
 
heh
 
I'm just trying to show the map to the torus is 1-1.
My life.
Yeah. @BalarkaSen, something like that.
 
12:40 AM
You have two variables in there, @Anthony, not one.
 
I should be clearer.
 
You should.
 
Indeed, I meant $\sin (x) \cos (y)$.
 
I'm blanking on the name of our math/physics double major from Tennessee, @Mike ... Usually talks to me about geometry.
 
@Anthony Domain?
 
12:41 AM
@TedShifrin Ask him what a field theory is.
 
@MikeMiller Theories built up on fields.
 
And you need all three coordinates, @Anthony, to decide one-to-one.
 
No it's not, @BalarkaSen
 
Well the z coordinate is just sine... which is 1-1...
Is that not how this works?
It isn't.
Oh boy.
 
@MikeMiller Oh you're going into that Quantawhoha field theory.
 
12:42 AM
No it is.
 
No, I'm not. I want to know what a gauge theory is. To get there, I need to know what a field theory is. :P
 
Why do you care, @MikeMiller?
 
you must first invent the universe
 
Okay, yeah, so I'm trying to show that $ [-1,1] \times [-1,1] \rightarrow \mathbb{R^3}$ given by $(x,y,z) \rightarrow ((1+\cos (\pi t_1))(\cos (\pi t_2)),(1+\cos (\pi t_1))(\sin (\pi t_2),\sin(\pi t_1))$ is 1-1
 
Gauges are connections on vector bundles :P
 
12:44 AM
@TedShifrin This is what I'm looking for! Please go on.
 
@TedShifrin Hmm?
 
Chern gave a wonderful introductory lecture that's in his selected works ...
I have it at school, not here.
Mike, you haven't learned what a connection is yet :P
 
@TedShifrin I know what a connection is. Knowing the theory behind something and knowing the definition are different...
 
Well, after my trip I can try to prepare an explanation.
 
woo
 
12:46 AM
oh, the physics/math guy is AndrewG, of course.
 
Ah! I'll shoot him an email.
 
someone should summon him.
 
Can anyone direct about how I would show this? I really don't know...
 
But I still don't get why you care, @MikeMiller.
 
@TedShifrin If I have a homogenous $G$-space $X$, is there automatically some group $H$ such that $X \cong G/H$ with the $G$-action given by multiplication?
The isomorphism being a diffeomorphism.
 
12:49 AM
Hmm. If $R$ is Noetherian, is $R[[X]]$ also Noetherian?
 
of course it is @BalarkaSen
 
Oh I'm dumb.
 
@KarlKronenfeld OK, why?
 
Anyway @MikeMiller I'm trying to do somethin' with math physics and cs.
But I don't know much of any of it.
Especially not what you're interested in.
 
@Anthony Three majors is a bit much for ordinary humans
 
12:51 AM
@BalarkaSen It's pretty straightforward, I will help you walk through it if you continue to ping me. (I am actually writing something)
 
Not if you perform as poorly as I do in all of them. :D
 
@Anthony You could probably do better if you focused on a single thing... A jack of all trades is a master of none
 
@BalarkaSen Pick an ideal $I$.
 
Following.
 
@MikeMiller I know.
Isn't that what grad school is for, anyway?
 
12:51 AM
Goal is to show that it is finitely generated
 
@BalarkaSen You can find a proof of this in your favorite algebra text
 
walkthroughs > books
 
@MikeMiller Dummit-Foote?
 
It'll be there, sure
 
Good. I'll have a look.
 
12:54 AM
Sorry @KarlKronenfeld
 
lol idc
back to writing
 
Back writing?
That has dual meaning.
 
@Mike: By definition of homogeneous space, $G$ acts transitively on $X$, and then (perhaps assuming $G$ connected) $X\cong G/G^o$, where $G^o$ is the isotropy subgroup of a point.
 
@TedShifrin Ah, okay. Thanks. :)
 
Oh meh that was obvious.
Got it @Mike.
 
12:56 AM
@BalarkaSen Did you work out your problem with $R[[t]]$?
A nice way to do it is showing prime ideals are finitely generated.
 
No, I just googled it, as I don't have my copy of Dummit-Foote with me.
=P
 
Oh, OK. I can provide a proof if you want.
 
Let's see your proof.
 
@Pedro: You settled your question?
 
@TedShifrin Yes.
 
12:59 AM
Coolio.
 

« first day (1507 days earlier)      last day (3516 days later) »